On 9/2/11 Sep 2 -5:41 PM, Faré wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 18:29, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
Passes all of the unit tests (including the new one based on Xach's test case).
Please, all of you, have a peek at the diffs (possibly I should have squashed the changeset to make this easier, sorry), and the commit message, and test it as soon as possible.
I have not bumped the version number, as this is still a work in progress subject to review.
If you push a code change to master, you MUST bump the version number. If you don't feel confident about the code, please don't push to master.
OK, sorry about that. I did the bin/bump-version, and pushed.
As for pushing to master, while I am not perfectly confident in the patch, it passes all the tests, and I'm as confident as I can get without people on the bleeding edge giving it a test.
Didn't you say it would be better to throw the old object and create a new one than to try to reinitialize those component instances?
Yes, but Christophe convinced me that this was The Wrong Thing, because methods defined on (EQL (FIND-SYSTEM <foo>)) would be broken by doing so. That led me to the REINITIALIZE-INSTANCE approach. Note, though, that it should have the same semantics --- the COMPONENTs are cleared, and that means that the children of the system will be made new. So I believe only the SYSTEM objects will be reused, since once the children slot of the SYSTEM is cleared, the previous child COMPONENTs should become unreachable.
I understand you are busy with other things, but if you get a chance, LMK what you think.
Best, R